XPost: alt.discuss.politics, alt.politics.bush, alt.politics.clinton
XPost: alt.politics.conservative, alt.politics.democrat, alt.politics.democrats
XPost: alt.politics.gw-bush
From: DrummKat54@cox.net
"Edward Glamkowski" wrote in message
news:c49f8b5e.0402151137.7900a440@posting.google.com...
>
> "Nate" wrote in message
>
> > I know it is hard for right wingers to actually learn anything from
history,
>
> I know its hard for left wingers to actually read the constitution...
I know it's hard for wing nuts to accept that the Supreme Court, and not
them, interprets the Constitution. The Constitution is what the Court says,
not what you want it to say.
>
> > but we did just have a Democrat who raised taxes in 1993 (with no
Republican
> > votes).
>
> President's don't raise taxes, only congress can do that.
> Article I, Sections 7 and 8.
Literally, you're right. But a President presents his budget and Congress
approves it or doesn't approve it. Clinton's budget was approved with no
Republican votes amid predictions of economic disaster.
> > He also created jobs at the fastest rate in American history,
>
> No president creates or destroys jobs.
> The US is not the USSR, we do not have a command economy, and the
> president can not outright dictate what private business can or
> cannot do.
>
> Even things like affirmative action are laws, which require a multi-
> step process to enact that involves the legislature, both houses, and
> are not done through presidential edict.
>
> Again, Article I, section 7.
Policies -- economic and otherwise -- create the conditions for job growth.
Still, you are once again literally correct, but blind to reality.
> > balanced the budget,
>
> The president does not spend money. At best, he recommends a budget.
> But congress doesn't have to play along with the president's request.
>
> Article I, section 9.
Yep, he recommended a balanced budget, right? And Bush recommended a big
deficit, and then had to increase his projections of the size of that
deficit three times, and that's without counting money for Afghanistan and
Iraq at $4 billion per month.
> > won a war in Bosnia without losing a soldier,
>
> But what about the CHILDREN! All those babies and kids killed by
> indiscriminate bombing!! You uncaring, uncompassionate fascist!
>
> And it wasn't a declared war.
> And it wasn't a UN sanctioned war.
> It was illegal!
>
> What a fascist leader, taking us into an illegal, undeclared war
> to KILL INNOCENT BABIES!
You worry about Bosian children but not Iraqi children? Hmmmm. More than
ten thousand died (children and others) in Iraq and are still dying. The
largest estimate of the "colateral" dead in Bosnia is a fraction of that.
An "illegal" war? Tell that to NATO which supported the war and sent
troops, unlike Iraq where the world (it turns out they were correct) wanted
to let the weapons inspectors do their job. Remember, Saddam didn't kick
out the inspectors, they left fearing for their lives from American
ordinance.
> > got us out of Somalia (where Bush, Sr. put us).
>
> Clinton had changed the mission in Somalia from humanitarian aid to
> chasing after warlords. But he failed to authorize the necessary
> support for the troops to fulfill the new mission.
>
> Clinton got us out of Somalia because he screwed it up so badly and
> wasn't prepared to do what was necessary to finish the job properly.
Somolia was Clinton's fault? Hmmm. Seems to me Adid was a central figure
from the start, considering he and his men interdicted the humanitarian aid
while people starved.
> > The only President to raise taxes more than Clinton was (wait for it
...)
> > Ronald Reagan.
>
> Reminding outselves that presidents don't raise taxes, congress does,
let's
> play your little game.
>
> Reagan had good reason to do it - try to outspend the USSR into oblivion.
> And it worked. Frankly, no price is too high for such a success.
>
> Clinton did it basically just because he could.
> No wars to support, no enemies to defeat, the economy was not tanking,
> everything was good. So why raise taxes when things are good?
>
> In fact, that's exactly the time when taxes can be safely cut. And
> historically the times when taxes were cut. But no, not Clinton.
> Clinton knew better how to spend our money then do we ourselves, right?
> The government knows what's best for its citizens, eh?
>
>
> > His economy didn't do that bad either.
>
> Presidents don't control the economy.
>
> And it "wasn't that bad" because of the internet bubble.
> Which was incredibly real, and the resulting crash was ultimately
> unavoidable. Clinton just got lucky that it happened later rather
> then sooner.
>
>
> > Under Bush, we have a net loss in jobs. The first time any President
has
> > accomplished that feat (he promised jobs would be created at 250,000 a
month
> > if his tax cuts passed, but still we're a bit behind (this month 244,000
to
> > be exact).
>
> Ooh, a valid point.
> Finally.
> Maybe.
>
> Really we have to wait and see the IRS's compiled statistics after April
15.
> That's the only way to know 100% for sure how the job situation has
faired.
>
> Not, of course, that the president actually controls job creation anyways.
> But you like to play this silly game...
>
>
> > By the way, all those countries have lower crime rates, better health,
and
> > the citizens live longer. A black baby born in the USA is more likely
to
> > die before his first birthday than a baby born in South Africa ? hmmmm.
>
> Non-sequitor.
I see the Soviet Union fell because RR spent them into oblivion. Couldn't
have had something to do with the Communist system, could it? We know today
that the Soviet Union was a paper tiger. They weren't spending with us,
that was PR. They were a country racked by poverty with a military that was
wafer thin, poorly trained, and hungry. The only thing they had that
presented problems for us was the ICBMs and subs neither of which could be
stopped with Reagan's offerings (we still haven't had a successful "kill" of
a missile by a missile (except for the ones in which the incoming missile
has a location beacon).
--
Tired of the same rhetoric of lies and deceit?
http://www.gentlemanjim.net/
"It aint what you don't know that'll hurt ya, it's what you "know" that aint
so." -- Will Rogers
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
